Mike Guevremont is moving out of 113 Wertland Place
Mike Guevremont at 113 Wertland Place has indicated that he is moving out of Winchester Landing. His house is on the market. Prospective buyers should be aware that the property is the subject of an ongoing fence compliance dispute.
As discussed in earlier posts, the fence is located in an easement area where fencing is prohibited under the restrictive covenants, and the issue has not been resolved in a way that eliminates the underlying covenant concern.
The fence is an ongoing liability concern because it is placed in a stormwater easement, which is intended to carry water away from properties during heavy rain. If the fence blocks or interferes with that function, it could contribute to flooding damage or drainage problems and create liability issues for the new owner of 113 Wertland Place or the HOA.
I requested the approval documents for his fence, as is my right under Virginia Code § 55.1-1815, but the board on which Mr. Guevremont sits refused to provide them, which makes it difficult to confirm when the fence was approved and by whom.
It should be noted that the HOA may still retain the authority to require the fence to be moved out of the easement, even if an approval was issued in conflict with the recorded restrictive covenant, because an approval does not by itself override the covenant.
For the record, Frederick County states that fences cannot placed in stormwater easements.
For these reasons, I sent a certified letter to the listing agent for the property advising her of the fence issue and requesting that it be disclosed to any prospective buyers. Buyers should review the HOA records, governing documents, and resale disclosure materials carefully before proceeding.
(Note: this is a late post. I didn’t write about it at the time. It’s now needed to support this post.)
I received the following email from Coventry Group Community Management representative Mark Schloemer. (Full email will be provided upon request)
Where’s The Beef?
The management company asserted that this blog was “already starting to create confusion” among Winchester Landing members. It did not identify any allegedly confusing post, specify the nature of the supposed confusion, identify any member who had raised a concern, or provide examples of inaccurate information. Without that information, the assertion is too vague to evaluate or verify.
Disclaimer Request
I was asked to move my disclaimer stating that this website is not affiliated with Winchester Landing HOA from my About page to the home page. It further asserted that certain materials should be available only to Association members through a password-protected portal, rather than published on a publicly accessible website.
My Response
I declined the disclaimer request. Instead, I added the statement, “Competent Governance Welcomes Scrutiny,” to the home page. I also made no commitment not to post HOA records that I lawfully obtain.
Efficient Use of HOA Resources?
The management company’s email states that the HOA attorney was involved in this matter. That raises a straightforward stewardship question: How much Association money was spent on legal advice intended to influence an independent homeowner blog, and what specific legal problem did that expenditure address? Given the absence of any identified inaccurate post or explained instance of member confusion, homeowners deserve a clear accounting of the expense and the basis for incurring it.
What Have We Learned
The disclaimer request appear to have been an effort to limit the blog’s public presentation and discourage scrutiny of the Association.
Lynn Topp, the owner of a Winchester Landing Facebook group, recently posted a warning to the group about sharing private content — without identifying what prompted it, what content was involved, or who was affected. I wrote about it here — and apparently, it got noticed.
Topp Follows Up With a “Clarification”
A few days after I wrote about Topp’s warning, she returned with a follow-up. This time, she explained herself. And the explanation confirms exactly what her silence was protecting.
Read that again. This was never about privacy in the abstract. It was about criticism. Specifically, criticism of the Board.
Criticism is Not a Problem
Topp treats criticism of the Board as though it were self-evidently a problem to be contained — something to warn residents about, something requiring a policy response. It isn’t. Criticism of an HOA Board isn’t a breach of community norms. It’s a normal, healthy, and frankly necessary part of belonging to an association that spends your money and makes decisions on your behalf. Every HOA in the country has residents who disagree with their Board. The ones that function well are the ones where that disagreement is allowed to surface, not the ones where someone tries to build a wall around it.
Misunderstanding of Facebook Terms of Service
Topp claims that “Facebook’s terms of service prohibit re-sharing content from a private group without explicit permission from the group administrators.” That is not what Facebook’s Terms of Service say. Facebook does limit the platform’s built-in sharing of private-group content. But its Terms do not say that a group administrator’s explicit permission is required before a post or comment may be discussed or republished outside Facebook. If Topp believes otherwise, she is welcome to provide a screenshot of the provision she is relying on.
Who is Actually Pushing a Narrative?
Topp frames my blog as an “outside narrative,” as though what’s being reported here is some invented or distorted story. It isn’t. All of my reporting comes from the Board’s own actions and the Board’s own words — contract terms, financial statements, meeting communications, and the Board’s own public statements. None of it requires spin. If Topp thinks something I’ve written is factually wrong, she’s welcome to say what it is. Calling documented conduct a “narrative” doesn’t make it one. If anyone is building a narrative, it’s Topp — in a group she’s made sure I can’t respond in, because she banned me.
Inaccurate Characterization of This Blog
Finally, Topp also claims this blog is being used “to criticize the board and fellow residents.” That’s not accurate. This blog is focused exclusively on scrutinizing the Board. Where resident comments have been addressed, the focus has been on evaluating the accuracy of a specific claim — not attacking the person who made it. This blog has never personally attacked a resident. If Topp believes otherwise, she’s welcome to point to a single example.
If Topp is concerned about personal attacks in this community, I’d invite her to take a closer look at her own group. Apparently, what qualifies as a personal attack depends on who is doing the talking.
For background: I created a second private Facebook group for Winchester Landing after Topp banned me from her group. My goal was not to divide the community, but to offer residents a group that isn’t controlled by a single homeowner — one where a committee of homeowners collectively decides what content is permitted and who is removed, rather than leaving those decisions to one person. Since I no longer had access to the existing group, I distributed flyers to let neighbors know the new group existed. Apparently, a flyer on a doorstep is a five-alarm emergency — enough to warrant a personal attack from a board member and now Frederick County Supervisor.
It’s a Neighborhood Group, Not a Therapy Session
Yes, Topp’s group is private. But let’s keep that in perspective. It isn’t a therapy group where people are sharing their deepest personal thoughts or highly sensitive information. It’s a neighborhood discussion group — consisting mostly of memes, neighborhood chatter, announcements and fairly innocuous posts and comments. And regardless of whether someone’s words were posted in a public forum or a private one, people should be willing to stand behind what they say and defend their position when challenged. Privacy and accountability are not mutually exclusive.
What is This Really About?
Topp claims this is about protecting homeowners. It isn’t. It’s about protecting the Board from scrutiny.
Lynn Topp, the owner of a Winchester Landing Facebook group, recently posted this privacy warning.
Why did she post this warning? We don’t know, because she didn’t say. When another homeowner essentially asked why, she didn’t respond.
That silence is worth sitting with, because of what this website actually does. It doesn’t just use words. It combines meeting clips, documents, screenshots, and text to build a record that’s very difficult for the Board to refute. Words alone are easy to dispute. Video, documents, and screenshots are not. They make this blog more effective—and apparently, that effectiveness is causing some discomfort.
What Has The Board Done to Limit This Blog’s Scrutiny of the Board?
As documented here, the board had an attorney send me a cease-and-desist letter demanding that I remove meeting clips and minutes from this blog. I declined to do so, and no legal action followed.
As documented here, the board imposed conditions on my request for copies of the snow-removal contracts that I believe were unsupported by Virginia law. After eventually providing the contracts, the board asked that I not post them on this blog. I agreed not to do so, even though no Virginia law prevents me from posting contracts I lawfully obtained.
As documented here, the board asked me to move my disclaimer stating that this website is not affiliated with Winchester Landing HOA from my About page to the home page. They also requested that I not publish lawfully obtained HOA records to this blog. I declined to do either one, and no legal action followed. The request appears to have been based on a vague concern that readers might be confused about this blog’s relationship to the Association, but no specific instance of such confusion was identified. The disclaimer request appears to have been an effort to limit this blog’s public presentation and discourage scrutiny of the Association.
Here We Go Again
Now screenshots from a Winchester Landing Facebook group owned by Lynn Topp are next on the list — limited not by the board, but by an owner who won’t say why.
Maybe that’s a coincidence. Maybe it isn’t. What I do know is that nobody has offered a legitimate reason for any of these limitations.
If the Board were confident in how it is running this Association, it wouldn’t need to keep the record fuzzy. It wouldn’t care whether homeowners saw the video, read the contract, or compared its statements side by side. The fact that every format that makes the Board’s conduct verifiable — video, documents, and now screenshots — keeps running into resistance isn’t a sign that I’m being unfair to the Board. It’s a sign that the Board should be willing to stand behind its actions when homeowners can check the record for themselves.
As I reported here last year, the Board voted to reduce its membership from five seats to three. In my view, the change was a power grab.
Our bylaws allow for up to nine Board seats. Five seats—near the middle of that range—is the right size for our community: enough members to provide meaningful representation and a range of perspectives, without becoming unwieldy.
Instead, a three-person Board now governs a community of 169 homes. All three Board members are single-family homeowners. Condo and townhome owners, who make up roughly two-thirds of the community, currently have no representation on the Board.
Tom Denney Announces Pam Plavnieks’s Appointment at the Meeting
At the August board meeting, Denney formally announced the appointment of Pam Plavnieks to the board.
Now It’s All Coming Clear
Here’s where it gets farcical—and, in my view, further supports the conclusion that reducing the Board from five seats to three was a power grab.
It was obvious that Plavnieks did not want to be sitting at that table. She looked extremely uncomfortable and kept moving to her right until she was finally out of the camera frame.
Then came the revealing moment. When Denney said that her appointment runs through next February, when she could run for another term, Plavnieks waved her arms in a clear “no way” gesture and shook her head. The video does not capture every detail perfectly, but the message was unmistakable: she has no intention of running next year.
That is the point. Denney did not appoint someone prepared to build an independent Board presence. He appointed someone who appears to be filling a seat temporarily—and who is unlikely to challenge the status quo.
Remember, Plavnieks is the same person who led the audience in a round of applause for the Board at the February meeting.
It is also worth noting that, after David Noordhoff resigned in protest from the board last year, the Board did not appoint anyone to fill his seat. It remained vacant for five months—until the Board reduced its membership from five seats to three, eliminating the vacancy altogether.
That contrast raises a fair question: why was Noordhoff’s seat left empty, while Guevremont’s seat was filled so quickly?
The Workload Explanation Doesn’t Add Up
And here is where the Board’s explanation gets even harder to square with the facts. Homeowners were told that reducing the Board from five seats to three was about workload—that there was not enough work to justify five Board members.
Yet, in announcing Plavnieks’s appointment, Denney praised Guevremont for having “devoted countless hours of his time and energy to serving the Board and the homeowners of Winchester Landing.”
Those two statements do not sit comfortably together. If the work required countless hours from one departing Board member, how was there too little work to justify a five-member Board?
The workload rationale was supposed to explain why fewer seats were necessary. Instead, it now looks more like a power grab.
Does This Sound Like Not Enough Work?
Even He Warned Us
Consider this comment from former Winchester Landing board member Mike Guevremont who voted in favorof reducing the number of board seats.
He warned about boards that “rule with an iron fist,” describing the litigation, falling property values, and sheriff’s presence at meetings that resulted. He was talking about a different community he’d lived in before — but the irony is hard to miss: the same person warning us about concentrated board power voted to concentrate it here. It seems some lessons don’t travel with the person who learned them.
Why an Independent Board Matters
A healthy Board should include people with different views, priorities, and perspectives. That is how decisions get tested before they affect 169 homeowners.
The problem with a three-person Board is that two votes constitute a majority. When two members are consistently in lockstep—here, Tom Denney and Carl Griffis—the third seat can become little more than window dressing.
It is worth remembering that former Board member David Noordhoff resigned over what he believed the Board was trying to do improperly at the time. Former Board member John Hess voted against reducing the number of board seats. Those were examples of dissent—and dissent is not a problem. It is a warning system.
The same is true of homeowner dissent. It can be inconvenient, but it often signals that a decision deserves more scrutiny, more explanation, or a different course.
So how much independent dissent will Plavnieks bring to the table? Based on what we saw at this meeting, I think the answer is obvious.
Two Chances For Tom Denney to Hold Ruppert Accountable. Zero Action, Either Time.
Last January, Ruppert Landscaping left our sidewalks and driveways buried for 11 hours after a storm ended. That was chance number one to hold them accountable. Tom Denney let it pass.
This April, Ruppert handed the HOA nine invoices for work from the previous year that was never billed at the time — a massive amount owed, all at once. That was chance number two. Before paying it, Denney could have said, “Let’s talk about January first.” He let that pass too.
Two chances. Zero action. Everything below is the record that backs that up.
What Does The Snow Removal Contract Say?
When I first requested a copy of the Ruppert Landscaping contract earlier this year, the Board initially told me I could only view it at the management company’s office—and that I could not photograph it or take a copy home. After I pushed back, the Board relented and sent me a digital copy, but asked that I not post it on this blog. I agreed not to, even though I believed then, as I do now, that I had every right to publish it. I’m posting the full contract with this article for a simple reason: a snippet invites the response that the rest of the document might say something different. It doesn’t. Here it is, in full, so you can judge for yourself. The relevant portion of the contract is highlighted.
It says “contractor shall provide twenty-four (24) hour snow removal services on non-VDOT dedicated streets and after the event for sidewalks, driveways and lead walks.” Read that again. Streets get a 24-hour standby commitment. Sidewalks and driveways get “after the event” — in the same sentence. That’s not an accident. That tells you the contractor was expected to be ready to move the second the storm stopped, not whenever it felt like showing up. The entire point of a snow removal contract is restoring safe access quickly. If “after the event” means “next morning,” the contract doesn’t mean anything.
Notice whose signature is at the bottom of the contract: Tom Denney’s. He agreed to these terms. He just didn’t bother holding anyone to them.
11 Hours
According to Winchester Regional Airport weather data, the storm on January 25 ended around 11PM. Sidewalks and driveways didn’t get touched for roughly 11 hours after that.
Nobody’s asking for instant service. An hour, two hours, fine. Eleven hours is not a weather problem. It’s a performance problem.
Chance One: What Tom Denney Actually Did About It
When homeowners complained about the snow removal delay in the community Facebook group last January, Denney showed up — and defended Ruppert instead of addressing what people were actually upset about. Isn’t he supposed to be advocating for homeowners, not the contractor?
Everything he said in that post is unsupported by the contract. You can read my separate post, which addresses and debunks those claims, here.
At the February meeting, his big update was that he and the board had “discussions” with Ruppert. That’s the whole story.
No mention of a lawyer. No mention of asking for a credit. No mention of anything beyond a chat. If you or I handled our own household contracts this way, we’d call it what it is: getting walked on.
Chance Two: Ruppert Handed Tom Denney a Second Shot, and He Blew That One Too
In April, Ruppert sent nine invoices to the HOA totaling $69,000 — for work that should have been billed last year. They attributed it to an internal oversight related to Ruppert’s acquisition of Greatscapes last year. Fair enough, but that’s leverage handed to Denney on a silver platter. That’s the moment to say, “Before we cut you a check, let’s talk about January.”
As far as the record shows, he didn’t do that. No letter. No phone call. No credit requested. No attorney consulted on whether the HOA had any leg to stand on.
What Did Coventry Say about The 9 Invoices At The Meeting on August 18?
The management company told the room, unprompted, that this hadn’t been brought up sooner because there hadn’t been a meeting since the invoices arrived in April. Nobody asked her that. Nobody needed to — the timing was obvious.
She also never mentioned the total amount of the invoices: $69,000. That’s a significant detail to leave out. I found out about the invoices and the total amount owed a week before the meeting, after going through the financials myself. Here is the documentation.
So ask yourself: why explain a timing gap nobody questioned, but leave out the one number that actually matters? It’s fair to wonder whether any of this would have come up at all if I hadn’t dug it up.
Sit With This One for a Second
At Tuesday’s meeting, board member Carl Griffis said, out loud, I kid you not because you can see if for yourself below, that Ruppert really wants to keep the HOA’s business — because the snow and grounds contracts are up for renewal right now.
Sit with that for a second. The Board knows Ruppert wants to keep this account. That’s leverage. That’s exactly the kind of thing you use when you’re negotiating a credit for a service failure. Instead, the Board mentioned it almost as a footnote, apparently without connecting it to the $69,000 they’d just quietly paid out.
If you knew your contractor didn’t want to lose your business, would you have paid in full with no questions asked? Or would you have tried to negotiate the bill down over a service failure earlier that year?
“It’s Not Legally Possible” Isn’t an Answer
I expect someone to argue that a credit against the April invoices couldn’t legally be tied to a separate contract dispute from January. Maybe. Maybe not. Here’s the thing: nobody actually knows, because as far as I can tell, nobody with a law degree was ever asked.
The Board doesn’t seem to have a problem engaging legal counsel to try to constrain this blog — twice, (here and here) that we know of. Yet when it came to a real dispute with a vendor, it apparently didn’t bother. Either call legal to figure out what action can be taken, or have the backbone to deal directly with the vendor yourself. It looks like neither happened here.
Ruppert wanted $69,000 from this HOA and wants to keep doing business here for years to come. That’s about as much leverage as a board could ask for, and it went completely unused — twice.
The Money Saved Could Have Gone A Long Way
Here’s what makes this sting a little more. At the same meeting, there was talk about beautifying the community — new landscaping, common area improvements, that kind of thing. Nobody connected the dots. If the Board had even tried to negotiate a credit on either of its two chances, that’s real money that could have gone toward exactly the kind of improvements people were asking for in the very same meeting.
The Question I Keep Coming Back To
Would you have paid a contractor $69,000 in back invoices, no questions asked, after they left your own driveway and sidewalk buried for 11 hours — knowing full well they didn’t want to lose your business? I don’t think most people reading this would have.
Two chances. Zero action. And now we know Denney had leverage sitting right in front of him the whole time and still didn’t use it.
Draw Your Own Conclusions
This isn’t about one storm or one invoice. It’s about whether the people trusted with your money actually fight for you, or just sign whatever lands on the desk. The contract, the timeline, the two missed chances, a board member admitting Ruppert doesn’t want to lose our account — it’s all part of the record.
Who do you want managing your money: someone who’s hard-nosed, or someone who’s a pushover?
At the first board meeting after the snowstorm last January, Board president Tom Denney addressed the numerous homeowner complaints about snow removal.
Board President Tom Denney
Glaring Omission
His response essentially boils down to the board giving the vendor a stern talking-to. That’s nice—but notice what he didn’t say. He never addressed the most common complaint raised by a large number of homeowners: the late start of snow removal on sidewalks and driveways. Under the contract, work was supposed to begin after the snow event ended, yet it didn’t actually start until nearly 12 hours later.
Board Ignores Contract Breach
On the surface, his response sounds reasonable. The Board “heard” the complaints, spoke with the contractor, and identified areas for improvement. Case closed, right?
Not exactly.
What’s missing from this response is the most important issue: the contract.
As outlined in a prior post, the vendor failed to meet clear contractual obligations. This wasn’t just a matter of “missing a few things” — it was a failure to perform under the terms the HOA is paying for. That’s not a communication issue. That’s a breach of contract.
And yet, there was no mention of it.
No acknowledgment that the vendor didn’t meet contractual standards. No indication that the Board evaluated the situation through that lens. And most importantly, no mention of whether the HOA pursued any credits or financial remedies on behalf of homeowners.
Instead, the focus was on having a conversation with the vendor and hoping for better results next time.
That raises a simple question:
If a vendor fails to deliver what they were contractually obligated to provide, and the Board doesn’t enforce the contract or seek compensation — who exactly are they advocating for?
It’s perfectly reasonable for the Board to address performance issues and expect improvement going forward. But that’s only half the job. The other half is holding vendors accountable when they don’t meet their obligations.
Because if the HOA isn’t enforcing its contracts, then what exactly are homeowners paying for?
Here’s what’s really ironic: the board engaged lawyers to try to prevent me from obtaining the snow removal contract, as I documented here, yet there’s no indication they’ve engaged counsel to determine whether that contract was actually breached. Make this make sense.
The board doesn’t seem to realize they have leverage over the vendor—and could use it to secure a monetary concession. That’s exactly what the board, as agents for the homeowners, should be doing.
The Complaints
For the record, here are some of the complaints from the community Facebook group. Many more complaints were submitted directly to the management company.
Just like the board, a few homeowners clearly don’t understand how contracts work. “Meta John” (John Topp) is a good example. He states “sidewalks and driveways are typically cleared after the storm has concluded”—which is precisely how the contract is written. The contract doesn’t say anything about “standard procedures being adjusted,” “reasonable effort,” or any kind of vague “pre-set expectations.” It sets specific obligations. Had “Meta John” bothered to request a copy of the snow removal contract, this would have been obvious. It’s not about what feels reasonable; it’s about what was actually agreed to.
What’s interesting about people who hold this position is that they almost certainly wouldn’t tolerate it in their own lives. If they hired a contractor for landscaping and the work didn’t meet the contract’s terms, they’d either have the contractor return until it was done right or demand a partial refund.
John Topp
What Changed Between 2025 and 2026?
What changed between January 2025, when snow removal went smoothly during a similar storm, and January 2026? The answer: different vendors. January 2025 was handled by Greatscapes; January 2026 by Ruppert. Most likely, Ruppert was overbooked, while Greatscapes was not.
I recently sent a postcard to the community outlining several concerns about how the covenants are being handled — including issues involving board member Mike Guevremont. And yet again Mr. Guevremont responded by attacking the messenger and dodging the real issues.
Board Member Mike Guevremont
Postcard Delivered First Week of March 2026Mike Guevremont Comment on Postcard Delivered First Week of March 2026
Mr. Guevremont’s post calls the postcard “propaganda” and emphasizes that it is “not official HOA business.” Of course it isn’t. That should be obvious to anyone reading it. Homeowners are free to discuss HOA matters among themselves. Discouraging that raises serious accountability concerns.
What’s notable is that his response never actually addresses the issues raised in the postcard.
Instead, he talks about enjoying the spring weather, walking with grandkids, and having friendly chats by the mailbox. Sure — that all sounds great. But let’s call it what it is: a dodge. Mr. Guevremont just wants this whole matter swept under the rug instead of closely examined.
When legitimate questions about covenant enforcement come up, the responsible move is to deal with the facts—not label the discussion as ‘division’ or ‘drama’ and hope it goes away. Personal attacks usually signal a weak, indefensible position.
Homeowners deserve clarity about how the covenants are being interpreted and enforced. That’s the issue. Everything else is just a distraction.
It’s worth noting that Mike Guevremont is a community leader and serves on the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. In that role, you’d expect a response grounded in substance—something like, “I hear Mr. Gillette’s concerns, and here’s where I disagree, and why.”
Instead, the response was personal rather than substantive. That raises a fair question: is that the standard of leadership the community should expect?
An Anonymous Comment Suggests Ignoring the Issue
The following anonymous comment was submitted in response to this post:
“Can’t we all play nicely together in the playground? Drop the fence is issues (sic). We will loose (sic) many more neighbors with all this nonsense. Please put your efforts toward planting trees and flowers even throwing some grass seeds, not words and useless mail. Thank you.”
I think everyone would prefer a peaceful community. No argument there.
But the commenter is ill‑informed. Ignoring covenant violations doesn’t create harmony — it does the opposite. When rules are ignored or selectively enforced, homeowners eventually begin asking why the covenants apply to some people but not others. That’s what leads to resentment, division, and conflict in a community.
What’s truly nonsense—and frankly ignorant—is dismissing this issue as “drama,” “division,” or an “attack on the board.” That kind of thinking simply follows the board off the cliff. When clear covenant violations are ignored and enforcement becomes selective, the rules stop meaning anything at all.
I’ve formally notified the Winchester Landing HOA Board via certified mail about the serious liability risks from ignoring covenant restrictions on fences in property maintenance easements (including stormwater easements).
At the recent HOA meeting, Coventry Group Community Management representative Mark Schloemer spoke on the board’s behalf about the picket fence situation. His statements omitted key facts about the board’s approvals and presented a picture that obscures their legal consequences and the risks now shared by the entire community.
Fact: Picket Fences Are Not Allowed
The covenants are unambiguous: picket fences are not permitted in Winchester Landing.
Picket fences are not privacy fencing, and every homeowner bought subject to this restriction.
The “unless…recorded to the contrary” clause accounts for one homeowner waiver via recorded instrument.
Despite this, four homeowners have picket fences, each following one of two distinct approval tracks.
Approval History
According to a former Winchester Landing Architecture Review Committee (ARC) member:
Two picket fences were approved in error by the current board—an overreach contradicting the covenants.
The other two, installed during developer control without prior approval (confirmed by the former management company), later received retroactive approval from the current board.
The full video and transcript are available at the end of this post. The excerpts below focus on one narrow issue: what happens when a board approves fences that violate recorded restrictive covenants, and whether those approvals erase the underlying violations or the HOA’s exposure.
Core Facts and Legal Framework
The Board has approved fences it never had authority to approve under the covenants, in some cases before construction and in others after installation. Because of those approvals, it is difficult, as a practical and equitable matter, to demand that individual owners now remove or remediate fences the Board itself signed off on.
But an approval issued in violation of the restrictive covenants does not amend those covenants or legalize the non‑compliant structure; the violation still exists in the land records, and the picket fences remain out of compliance with the governing documents. At most, the improper approvals may limit direct enforcement against individual owners who relied on them, but they do not insulate the Association itself from claims of failure to enforce, selective enforcement, or breach of its own governing documents.
In other words, the Board did not resolve the problem; it shifted and expanded it. Instead of a discrete dispute with a few owners, the Association now faces community‑wide risk that a court could invalidate improper approvals, restrict future enforcement, or place financial responsibility on the HOA for correcting violations it authorized. That is not prudent risk management or acting in the best interests of the Association; it is self‑inflicted liability.
“The HOA” vs The Actual Decision‑Makers
The management representative states, “Whether that was done improperly or not, they have an approval from the HOA.”
These assertions gloss over the most important fact: when it comes to architectural approvals and covenant enforcement, the Board is the HOA. The same decision‑makers who granted these improper approvals are now talking about “the HOA” as if it were some separate, abstract entity that just happens to have issued them.
But there is no ghost organization. The approvals came from this Board, acting as the Association, and it cannot distance itself from those decisions by treating “the HOA” as a shield or a bystander. If you are the body that issued the approvals, you do not get to hide behind the label “HOA” to avoid responsibility for the consequences of those approvals. That is not transparent governance; it is an attempt to launder the narrative about who made the call and who now bears the risk.
Courts, Approvals, and Remedies
The management rep also claims that, “If it went to a court, no judge would tell the HOA that they have to or that the homeowner has to tear that down…so those have to be grandfathered in.” That is presented as a certainty that simply does not exist.
Courts do not deal in absolute predictions like “no judge would ever order removal.” They look to authority, process, and compliance with the recorded declaration. Retroactive approvals—or approvals issued in error or beyond the Board’s authority—do not amend the declaration, do not override restrictions, and do not bind a court.
A judge could decline to order individual owners to remove fences they installed in reliance on HOA approvals, but still require the Association to bear the cost of curing violations it approved or to accept limits on future enforcement because of inconsistent or arbitrary enforcement. A court could impose remedies that shift liability to the HOA, restrict future enforcement, invalidate improper approvals, or allocate responsibility based on how the approvals were issued and whether the Board had authority to grant them.
Framing this as if the fences “have to be grandfathered in” is not a neutral description of the law; it is a litigation‑risk judgment call being presented as legal inevitability.
Discretion Versus Obligation
The representative also frames remediation as a matter of pure Board discretion: “Now what the board could do is spend the money and say, ‘we’ll tear it down and make it right for you,’ but that means the HOA has to pay for that, and I don’t think the board is going to do that.”
That framing is incomplete. If owners challenge improper approvals or uneven enforcement, a court could order exactly that type of remedy—requiring the Association to correct or pay to correct non‑compliant structures it approved as part of enforcing the covenants uniformly. In that context, the question is not what the Board is inclined to do, but what it may ultimately be required to do if its approval and enforcement decisions are found to violate the governing documents.
Inviting Scrutiny Instead of Avoiding It
Homeowners should not have to take the Board’s or my analysis on faith. If you are unsure whose description of the law is more accurate, take the Association’s governing documents, the facts described here, and the key statements from the video and ask any attorney who regularly handles HOA and restrictive covenant matters—or even a neutral legal research tool—to identify the likely risks, remedies, and enforcement options.
Even basic legal‑analysis tools are useful as a first‑pass check on whether an explanation of HOA enforcement is grounded in typical covenant and remedies principles. The point is simple: sound governance should withstand outside scrutiny, and confident legal positions should not depend on residents never questioning them.
At minimum, owners are entitled to clear, accurate explanations of how their covenants work, what the Board has authority to approve, and who bears the risk when that authority is exceeded. Responsible enforcement begins with acknowledging past decisions honestly and evaluating the legal options, not with insisting that the issues are already resolved.
Cornered Into Enforcement
For a period, the pattern was clear: picket fences were approved despite clear covenant restrictions, violations were normalized through retroactive approvals, and the trajectory drifted from enforcement toward quiet accommodation of non-conforming structures.
That changed with objections, leaving the Board with limited options. By then, four picket fences had already been approved. Their first response was an attempt to grandfather them via changes to the architectural guidelines—but that approach failed, as architectural guidelines cannot override recorded restrictive covenants. A board member resigned rather than support it.
The Board then pivoted to amending the covenants themselves, starting with a community survey. That, too, was rejected by homeowners. With those paths closed, the Board returned to enforcement: no more picket fences approved going forward. The existing ones remain quietly grandfathered based on the same approvals now cited as a reason not to address the underlying violations.
The result is not a proactive enforcement policy. It is enforcement by necessity.
Why the Board Didn’t Require Remediation
Homeowners might reasonably ask why the Board didn’t simply require the two unapproved picket fences—installed during developer control—to be brought into compliance. That would have been a straightforward, legally defensible path under the covenants.
The obstacle was structural: uniform enforcement would have reached all non-conforming fences from that period, including one located in an easement and owned by a sitting board member. Consistent application thus triggered a clear conflict of interest.
At that point, remediation ceased to be a neutral governance decision. Incentives shifted toward selective accommodation, making uniform enforcement institutionally challenging. The outcome was not outright forgiveness, but protection of all similar violations.
That’s how governance erodes: not through overt chaos, but through unaddressed conflicts and selective enforcement.
How the Board Created Association-Wide Liability
Selective Enforcement Risk
The picket fences still violate the covenants, creating ongoing selective enforcement exposure. The HOA can issue violations to other owners, but those owners can now raise the approved picket fences as evidence of inconsistent enforcement and sue.
Courts facing selective enforcement claims do not simply pick winners—they can order remedies on both sides, including remediation of the contesting owner’s violation and the prior unaddressed ones (like picket fences). The HOA could end up bearing those costs, since the board created the inconsistency by approving non-compliant structures in the first place.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Risk
Beyond selective enforcement, approving fences that violate recorded covenants exposes the board to breach of fiduciary duty claims. Failing to enforce governing documents uniformly is not acting in the association’s best interests—it’s a textbook governance lapse.
Easement and Subrogation Risk
Two picket fences sit in easements: one installed without approval during developer control (by a current board member), the other approved by this board during homeowner control. These violate both the covenants and Frederick County guidance, which prohibits fences in stormwater easements.
Obstructing drainage creates flooding risk to surrounding properties. When damage occurs, private insurers pursue the HOA via subrogation—shifting potentially large costs to the association for knowingly allowing the hazard.
The Shared Consequences
These risks—inconsistent enforcement, fiduciary lapses, and easement obstructions—do not stay contained. They weaken overall covenant enforcement and expose every homeowner to financial liability the board’s decisions created. Uniform compliance protects the community; selective accommodation dilutes it
The Apathy Barrier
Instead of scrutinizing the board’s decisions and their consequences—like the liability risks outlined above—many choose comfort and are content to be led rather than actively engage. Most aren’t closely following these issues, which lets governance drift unchecked.
The simple truth is that the board has not met one of its core responsibilities: equal enforcement of the covenants. Minor questionable violations like portable dog fences get cited while obvious major violations like picket fences and fences in easements do not.
When residents raise valid concerns, the board’s response is community-wide emails urging reliance on “official” channels only, while leadership frames scrutiny as “drama” or “attacks on the board“. Competent leadership can withstand scrutiny—they wouldn’t need to turn the community against those seeking accountability. That typically signals a weak or indefensible position.
That dynamic benefits no one. Apathy shields decisions from review; dismissing questions as “drama” avoids addressing them. Informed homeowners are the check on governance—the alternative is decisions made without pushback.
Addressing Common Objections
Some have said picket fences “add character” to the community. The developer clearly prioritized visual consistency by limiting fencing to one type—that vision is embedded in the recorded covenants every homeowner bought into.
If the community wants variety, there’s a formal process: amending the restrictive covenants. The recent fencing survey showed homeowners rejecting that path—the majority want existing rules upheld.
Others ask, “What’s the harm? Picket fences aren’t hurting anything.” This post explains the liability risks those violations create—selective enforcement claims that weaken covenant protection for everyone.
Finally, this analysis explains my lawsuit against the HOA and board member Mike Guevremont. I identified the conflict of interest and easement/subrogation risks early. Though the case didn’t proceed, it didn’t legalize covenant violations—they remain violations.
What Can You Do?
Don’t sit on the sidelines. If property values, liability risks, and covenant strength matter to you, act where it counts:
Contact Coventry Group directly and state your position in writing—management responds to documented homeowner input.
Sign up for board meeting public comment to place concerns on the official record.
Comment publicly on this site for a visible, permanent trail—unlike emails that vanish into inboxes.
Request formal records (approval docs, surveys, communications) and submit written questions requiring responses.
Talk to neighbors—collective awareness counters fragmented apathy.
Private complaints disappear into black holes. Public, documented action shifts the dynamic: boards lose narrative control when accountability is visible and shared. Uniform enforcement starts with informed homeowners.
I invite the board or Coventry to correct any inaccuracies. I’ll gladly update the post—consider this an open invitation.
This post reflects my personal opinions and interpretations based on publicly available records and my experience as a homeowner. It is not legal advice.
